Thursday, August 07, 2008

Rowan, rowan together, gently down the stream of consciousness...

Via Obnoxio, some more bearded weirdness from the beardy-weirdy Archbishop of Canterbury...
"I concluded that an active sexual relationship between two people of the same sex might therefore reflect the love of God in a way comparable to marriage, if and only if it had the about it the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness."

OK, cheers, Archbish.

Still, I think that we should make it clear that anyone having sex outwith marriage, or a homosexual relationship with "the same character of absolute covenanted faithfulness", is still an evil fornicator and should be burned at the stake.

Are we all clear on the church's position? Good.

And now it's time to 'phone the Williams...
DK: Hey, Archbish; how's tricks?

AB: Fucking magic, man. I haven't got a scooby-do what I'm saying.

DK: Yeah, right. Cool. Can I get a quarter off you, mate?

AB: Er... well... I don't think I've got any. Er... a... I mean... er... wait it was... no, hang on... [long pause] Sorry, Devil; not sure where it... what was I talking about?

DK: Some weed, Bish.

AB: Er... don't think I have any. Go some angel-dust though...

[Bzzzzzzzzzzzt.]

That ArchBish: he's fucking crazy!

To paraphrase Fawlty Towers, please excuse him: he's from Wales...

16 comments:

Andi said...

*sighs* Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

Carl Richardson said...

The bible is like a box of chocolates to these people, they only pick the parts they like.

Better than been burnt to death I suppose.

Anonymous said...

I'm not particularly fond of Rowan Williams, DK, but be fair - I don't think Anglican teaching currently prescribes burning at the stake for sex out of marriage. :-)

The Archbishop was merely reflecting the centuries-old Christian belief that sex is something that should take place within a married relationship, or, as he seems to feel, in a faithful monogamous relationship between two persons of the same gender.

You may or may not agree with his position, but I don't see it as crazy for an Anglican archbishop to promote monogamous relationships (part of the job description, I imagine). Of course, you might feel that the concept of monogamy is itself 'fucking crazy' (no pun intended!), but many people, religious or not, would disagree.

Do you object to Williams's comments on libertarian grounds? I don't see how you really can - after all, his views are only of importance to those who believe in God, and to the members of the Anglican Communion. If you don't believe in God, you presumably also don't believe an archbishop has any moral or spiritual authority over you, and so his comments become only his point of view with which you have every right to disagree.

R Miller

Boy on a bike said...

Hey, you hot bastard.

What do you make of this post?

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/leftist_blog_users_are_ruder/

Where do you fit in?

peter carter-fuck said...

The Archbish is being rather clever here. He says that God is cool with two people of the same sex being in an active sexual relationship, so long as they really really love each other and all that. But we all know that there has to be a passive partner as well as an active partner in any gay relationship or it just won't work. So if you have two active partners, they will just spend all their time chasing each other, each trying to bum the other, with the result that no-one gets bummed, and therefore God loves them. I have to give the Beardster a lot of credit for some very subtle thinking. And to think I took him for a deluded old Welsh hippy; it shows you should not judge by appearances.

Anonymous said...

Hmm,

Crazy kinda beard,long flowing robes, mental statements on a regular basis. If only the bish could come round to burning some queers at the stake and beating a few bitches to death for looking the wrong way at a man he could do really well as a muslim 'faith leader.'

Mitch said...

Leviticus 18:22

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." 8

see obvious and I`m not an archbish basher!

closet poo prodder that bloke.

larry grayson said...

Ohh 'ark at im with the nice dress on, talking about shirt lifters. I'd get the beard trimmed ducky if I was you, so 1960s.

Ere shut that cathedral door, there's a terrible draft in 'ere.

Anonymous said...

@ R Miller

I'm afraid you're rather confused.

Prof. Williams says that a faithful monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender is fine. However a faithful monogamous relationship between two people of different genders is unacceptable unless that relationship takes place under the sacrament of marriage.

By trying to shoehorn homosexuality into the Anglican ecclesiastical tradition, Williams is creating a paradox where gays would be entitled to a type of relationship which would be forbidden to heterosexuals under church canons.

Speaking as an atheist with an interest in church law, I have no particular axe to grind here, but the paradox is entertaining and largely the result of trying to keep one foot in the past and one foot in the present - one foot in the tradtionalist camp and one in the modernising camp.

Anonymous said...

YHere's the thing.. there's one thing that connects the two strongest faiths in the world.. Catholicsm and Islam... They DONT CHANGE WITH THE WIND...

It also explains why Anglicanism is dying on its arse... (no pun intended)

Anonymous said...

@anon 12:57 AM

You're not very well informed about matters theological, are you?

Islam, as practiced today, is pretty much an invention of the second half of the c20th. Even the extreme Wahabbi form practised in Saudi is pretty unrecognisable from the original Wahabbi theology that evolved in the c18th. And, needless to say, Wahabbism (whether in its c20th, c21st or c18th forms) is pretty radically different from Islam as Muhammad decreed it and different, in turn, from Islam under the Ottoman Caliphs. The story of Islam is the story of constant flux and very little consistency.

Much the same can be said for Catholicism. Despite the bullshit claims that the Catholic Church is the inheritor the late antique Western Christian Orthodox church through the Second Council of Orange, the fact remains that the Catholic Church is pretty much a high mediaeval construct. Then you have to take into account that the modern Catholic Church traces its roots not to Second Orange in 529 and certainly not to Constantine's Nicaea but to the Council of Trent and you end up with the problem that the Catholic Church, as it is now constituted, was invented pretty much on the fly as a response to Luther at the start of the early modern era. Then factor in the destruction of the Papal States in the 1870s and the creation of the (previously unknown) concept of Papal Infallibility and chuck in a liberal dose of Vatican II.

Very little continuity exists in Catholicism or Islam but a great many claims of unchanging consistency are made.

Fact is, amigo, the difference between Catholicism and Islam, on the one hand, and Anglicanism on the other lies in one respect: the Anglicans admit to modernising while the Catholics and Muslims simply deny that any changes have ever taken place. Moreover, given that very few practitioners of either Islam or Catholicism will ever delve into the byzantine (not to say Byzantine, in Catholicism's case) complexities of their faith's history, it is not hard to see how they can pull off their swindles. Hardly anyone, except hardcore forensic theologians, will ever bother studying the topic in enough detail to see through the smoke and mirrors.

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum indeed.

jwcuibono said...

"Rowan, rowan together, gently down the stream of consciousness... "


Strapline of the Year 2008

Category:

Product Identification & Branding.

Give it up for the Devil, he ain't solely Lucifer but he does have a flashlight.

Try the veal, you've had the venal.

Budgie said...

Anon 1:41am
A very interesting piece. You obviously know a fair bit about religious history. But ....

A quibble(?): Byzantium is associated with the Orthodox faith not the Catholic (which is mainly Rome based).

I think Anon 12:57am was trying to make the fair point that the Anglicans change year by year, picking up the latest cultural fads. The changes you ascribe to the Catholic church actually range over centuries: a rather different matter.

Anonymous said...

@Budgie,

>A quibble(?): Byzantium is associated with the Orthodox faith not the Catholic (which is mainly Rome based).<

You speak the truth. It was a joke on my part (and obviously a pretty bad one) referring to the eleventh century schism between the western and eastern churches and to the fact that the mediaeval Papacy pretty much evolved from the old Byzantine exarchate of Rome.

>I think Anon 12:57am was trying to make the fair point that the Anglicans change year by year, picking up the latest cultural fads. The changes you ascribe to the Catholic church actually range over centuries: a rather different matter.<

I'd say the Catholic church changes its doctrinal stance pretty much once a generation. Its great strength is not so much in the creation of continuity but, like the British monarchy, in creating the illusion of stability, continuity and consistency.

Having said that, all religion is guff so, y'know, fuck 'em all - Catholic, Mussies and Anglicans alike.

Dave H. said...

Leviticus 18:22-23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."

Dear Manwithbeard,
'Abomination' sounds more forbidden than 'perversion'. If the former is now ok, may I infer permission to undertake a secretly-wished-for tryst with a Thompsons Gazelle?

I promise to remain loving & faithful to the same one, and if it relies on me for food/water it's bound to develop some kind of reciprocal fondness in return.

Anonymous said...

@ Dave H.

You actually read *all* of Leviticus or just the bit that says God Hates Fags?

See, God doesn't like cotton blends either. And when was the last time you sacrificed a bullock, you fucking heathen?

It must be nice to pick and mix whatever you like from Scripture, Dave H, you ignorant fucktard.